alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

Number Name Description

Fatal/Proposed

Analytical Type

Applicable SMAF Attribute

 / Domain Value Left Side Labe

38

Budgetary USSGL Accounts and Balance Transfer BETCs "BXFERC" and "BXFERD"

The sum of Balance Transfer BETC transactions (BXFERC and BXFERD) for a TAS must equal the sum of specific USSGL accounts 

417600, 419000, 419100, 

419200, 419300, 419600, 419700, 435600, 483100 and 493100 for that TAS.

Proposed Analytical USSGL / SMAF Account Type = EXPND

Balance Transfers Budgetary 

150

SF133 Line 5332 Balance Check

The value of this line must be greater than or equal to zero.

Proposed Analytical

Statement Line / Statement Line Account Type = EXPND SF133 Line 5332 

153

SF133 Line 5342 Balance Check

The value of this line must be greater than or equal to zero.

Proposed Analytical

Statement Line / Statement Line Account Type = EXPND SF133 Line 5342 

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Summary Report

Bulletin No. 2021-20 DRAFT VII ESR - 1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

|I, William P. Murnane, certify
      that:
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          
|                                          

|Date: December 14,
      2007 |                                           
|----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                             
|                              | \s\ William P.
      Murnane              
|                              | William P.
      Murnane                  
|                              | Chairman and Chief
      Executive Officer

61

---
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2024 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 2/15/23
06.03
### EPA Response to OMB comments on Implementation provisions of the SO 2 NAAQS rule Lydia Wegman to: James

_ A..

_ Laity 05/27/2010 06:24 PM

Cc: Mike Thrift, James Hemby, Anna Wood, Kevin McLean, Larry Wallace, Padmini Singh, Richard Wayland, Sara Schneeberg, Scott Mathias, Charlotte Bertrand, Bridgid Curry, Tricia Crabtree, Lydia Wegman Jim, Please find attached a redline/strikeout version of the first part of the implementation section which responds to the comments you sent me this morning. For the most part, we find that we are not able to accept your comments. In response to your request on the last page that we take comment on the general approach, we believe that the overall approach is central to the way in which the final monitoring provisions are structured and thus to the final rule. Equally important, we believe we cannot request comment in the context of a final rule. In addition, we do not want to state that we will be taking public comment on the modeling guidance. The states will be taking comment on the maintenance plans as they are developed and EPA will be taking comment on these plans once they are submitted to us. The way in which the states make use of our guidance in conducting their modeling will be subject to public comment at both the state and federal levels. Thus, there will be ample opportunities for public comment on the states' use of the modeling guidance we issue. Other edits are included in this attachment as well. If you have any questions, please call my cell phone. Thanks Jim. Lydia
No. 52953.

#### Wilson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 134941-K, etc. (New York).

*268Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of “ox-gall concentrate and/or sheep gall concentrate’’ the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE SERVICEMASTER QUARTERLY REPORT TO 
               SHAREHOLDERS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
               IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
               FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001052045                     
<NAME>                          THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                    1000
       
<S>                             <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999    JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999    MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                          31,488         32,860               
<SECURITIES>                    54,592         64,459               
<RECEIVABLES>                   471,808        347,342               
<ALLOWANCES>                    41,159         31,971              
<INVENTORY>                     63,810         57,364               
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                795,393        662,262               
<PP&E>                          578,626        419,845               
<DEPRECIATION>                  302,177        237,076               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,445,809      2,698,231               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           714,131        627,132               
<BONDS>                         1,412,177      1,379,936               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0              0               
<PREFERRED>                     0              0               
<COMMON>                        3,102          2,807               
<OTHER-SE>                      1,180,235      546,060               
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,445,809      2,698,231               
<SALES>                         0              0               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,115,062      981,788               
<CGS>                           0              0                      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   899,815        794,797                                   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                136,619        117,218            
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              21,948         24,095               
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 60,301         49,113
<INCOME-TAX>                    24,692         19,843
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             35,609         29,270
<DISCONTINUED>                  0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0              0
<CHANGES>                       0              0
<NET-INCOME>                    35,609         29,270
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.12           0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.12           0.10
        


</TABLE>
No. 63049.

#### J. J. Hayes Company *v.*United States,

protests 58/13353 and 58/13354 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
# sec5_snc_2023

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-12	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SNC - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BJune 2022
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40444 

Conference Calendar

 

ALFRED NEAL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH SEBERT McCANN,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-689

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfred Neal, TDCJ #677631, appeals the dismissal of his

civil-rights action following a bench trial before a magistrate

judge. Neal contends that Officer Kenneth McCann used excessive

force against him and that prison officials did not follow prison

regulations when punishing him.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and we find no nonfrivolous contentions. We find Neal’s
No. 96-40444

- 2 -

excessive-force contention frivolous for essentially the reasons

relied upon by the magistrate judge. See Neal v. McCann, No. 95-

CV-689 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 1996). Neal can show no plain error

regarding his contention, raised for the first time on appeal,

that prison officials did not follow their own regulations when

punishing him. Failure of prison officials to follow their own

regulations does not give rise to a constitutional error. 

Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986); see

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th

Cir. 1996)(en banc).

This appeal is frivolous. We caution Neal that any

additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the

imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Neal is further

cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do

not raise arguments that are frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTIONS WARNING

ISSUED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

:

JOSE GALAN, :

 Plaintiff, :

v. : CIVIL NO. 05-CV-5970

:

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant. :

____________________________________:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1 day of May 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for st

Summary Judgment [Doc. # 9], Defendant’s Response thereto and Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. # 10], Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law [Doc. # 14], Plaintiff’s

Supplemental Memorandum of Law [Doc. # 15], United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice’s

Report & Recommendation [Doc. # 16], and the Record in the above-captioned matter, and in the

absence of any objections to the Report & Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) The Report & Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED inasmuch as it

seeks remand for further proceedings, but DENIED in all other respects;

(3) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; 

(4) The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner to develop the record more

fully, to evaluate all relevant medical evidence, and specifically to:

(a) reassess Plaintiff’s credibility in accordance with the Report &

Recommendation;

(b) attempt to translate Dr. Olivo’s shorthand treatment notes; and

Case 2:05-cv-05970-CMR Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

(c) reevaluate Dr. Olivo’s opinion based on a thorough examination of

the underlying evidence of the entire record, including any newly

acquired evidence collected on remand.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case for

statistical purposes.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe 

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

Case 2:05-cv-05970-CMR Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 49604.

#### Petition 6305-R of National Silver Co. (Los Angeles.)

*257Opinion by

Colb, J.

The Government virtually conceded that entry at the lower value by petitioner was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States. In view of a report signed by various Government officials stating that in their opinion the importer acted in good faith, and the court being satisfied of this fact from an examination of the record and consideration of all the circumstances, the petition was granted.
No. 61821.

#### E. Leitz, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 260966-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked *“A”*consist of parts of photo enlargers; that said enlargers were held dutiable at 15 percent under paragraph 1551, as modified, as photographic cameras in *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874); and that, in accordance with said decision, parts for enlargers are properly dutiable as parts of photographic cameras under paragraph 1551, the claim of the plaintiff at 20 percent was sustained as to said items. Following *John P. Berber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protest was dismissed as to the items marked “B,” and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)


     I,  Gregory  J.  Halpern,  Chief  Executive  Officer  (principal  executive
officer) of Circle Group Holdings,  Inc. (the  "Registrant"),  certifies that to
the best of my knowledge,  based upon a review of the  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

             /s/ Gregory J. Halpern
             ---------------------------
             Name: Gregory J. Halpern
             Chief Executive Officer
             Date: November 12, 2003
Unobligated Balances of Receipts and Appropriations Temporarily Precluded From Obligation

1 IRC Handout 7-21-16

Per OMB Circular No. A-11:

1035 Unobligated balance precluded from obligation (limitation on obligations) (-)

In cases where the total budgetary resources are precluded from obligation in a fiscal year by a provision of law (such as a limitation on 

obligations), unobligated balance of mandatory appropriation or contract authority is also precluded in special and non-revolving trust funds.

Current USSGL account:
Unobligated Balances of Receipts and Appropriations Temporarily Precluded From Obligation

2 IRC Handout 7-21-16

Proposed USSGL Account:

Account Title: Unobligated Balances of Receipts and Appropriations Temporarily Precluded From Obligation

Account Number: 439701

Normal Balance: Credit

Definition: Based on situations where total budgetary resources are precluded from obligation in a fiscal year by a provision of law 

(such as a limitation on obligations), the amount of unobligated balances of receipts and appropriations that becomes unavailable for 

obligation until specific legal requirements are met is also precluded in special and non-revolving trust funds.

Justification: To support OMB Circular No. A-11. 

TC:

NEW A124 To record unobligated balances of appropriations derived from special or trust fund receipts as temporarily precluded 

from obligation. For this situation, the appropriation was available for obligation in the previous fiscal year but is not part of an 

obligation limitation in the subsequent fiscal year.

Comment: The balance in USSGL account 439701 should be reflected as part of the end-of year balance on Schedule N: Special and 

Trust Fund Receipts Schedule of the Budget of the United States Government. Trust and special funds whose authority is limited to 

the current year obligations will record this transaction at yearend as a preclosing adjusting entry.

Budgetary Entry

Debit 445000 Unapportioned Authority

Debit 462000 Unobligated Funds Exempt From Apportionment

Credit 439701 Unobligated Balances of Receipts and Appropriations Temporarily 

Precluded From Obligation
Unobligated Balances of Receipts and Appropriations Temporarily Precluded From Obligation

3 IRC Handout 7-21-16

Attribute Table:

No. USSGL Account Title Anticipated Budg

/Prop

Norm 

Bal

Begin/

End

Debit/

Credit

Auth 

Type 

Code

Apport 

Cat

Apport 

Cat B

439701 Unobligated Balances of Receipts and 

Appropriations Temporarily Precluded 

From Obligation

N B C E D/C

No. Year 

of 

BA

Reduction 

Type

Fund Type Reporting 

Type 

Code

Financing 

Account

Code

TAS 

Status

Trans. 

Code

439701 ES/ET U N U N

No. Avail 

Time

BEA 

Cat

Borrow 

Source

Budgetary

Impact

Indicator

Cohort 

Yr

Cust/ 

Noncust

Exch/ 

Nonexch

Fed/ 

NonFed

Tradin

g Ptnr

Trading 

Ptnr 

Main

PY 

Adj

Program 

Indicator

439701 X
Part 2

SUPPLEMENT 

DRAFT Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting

Section VII 

Edit

No

Prior 

Year 

USSGL 

Account

Beginning

Ending 

Balance 

Indicator

Authority

Type Code

TAS 

Status

Reporting

Type Code

TAS Status 

Transitioning 

Code

Beginning

Balance 

USSGL 

Account

435400 E P 420100

435500 E 420100

435600 E 420100

437000 E 420100

21 438500 E P/S 420100

438700 E 420100

438800 E 420100

439000 E 420100

439100 E 420100

435700 E 438400

438200 E 438400

438300 E 438400

438400 E 438400

21 438500 E 438400

439400 E 439400

439600 E 439400

415700 E 439700

432000 E 439700

439700 E 439700

439701 E 439700

439900 E 439700

21 415730 E 439730

21 439730 E 439730

415800 E 439800

439800 E 439800

442000 E U N 445000

443000 E U N 445000

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Closing Edits Detail Report

Bulletin No. 2019-02 DRAFT VII CER - 1 IRC Handout 12/4/18
| (1)          | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)          | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      NFC. |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May      29, 2008 |   | /s/    | PAMELA J. TURBEVILLE             |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                               |   |   | Pamela      J. Turbeville        |
|                               |   |   | Principal      Executive Officer |

| Date:      May 29, 2008 |   | /s/    | JOHN V.  MULVANEY, SR. |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                    |   |   | John      V. Mulvaney, Sr.       |
|                    |   |   | Principal      Financial Officer |

| Date:      May 29, 2008 |   | /s/    | DAVID L. DERFELT                  |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                    |   |   | David      L. Derfelt             |
|                    |   |   | Principal      Accounting Officer |

----
#### Dinesh N. RATNAYAKAGE Petitioners v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

No. 00-71146.

I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*592Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

*593MEMORANDUM **

Dinesh N. Ratnayakage, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, appeals the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which concluded that he did not qualify for asylum or withholding of deportation. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary.

I

We do not have jurisdiction over Ratnayakage’s assertion that he was a victim of past persecution, because he did not raise it before the BIA. Ratnayakage is required to exhaust all of his arguments by presenting them to the BIA. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1992). A “failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.” *Cortez-Acosta v. INS,*234 F.3d 476, 479 (9th Cir.2000), *citing Vargas v. INS,*831 F.2d 906, 907-08 (9th Cir.1987).

II

An applicant can show a well-founded fear of future persecution by adducing credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution. *Duarte de Guinac v. INS,*179 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir.1999), *citing Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1428 (9th Cir.1995). The applicant may make this showing either through the production of specific documentary evidence or by credible and persuasive testimony. *Ramos-Vasquez v. INS,*57 F.3d 857, 862-63 (9th Cir.1995). Ratnayakage’s documentary evidence was limited in scope and outdated, and his testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. Even if Ratnayakage were persecuted in the past, he has not demonstrated that ten years later his persecutors continue to have an interest in him. *See e.g., Chand v. INS,*222 F.3d 1066, 1075 (9th Cir.2000) (where lack of persecutor’s continuing interest was factor in denial of asylum). Ratnayakage did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ratnayakage is not entitled to asylum.

Ill

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Ratnayakage’s motion to reopen proceedings so that he could apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Ratnayakage must present material evidence that more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. *See 8*C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2) (2000). Ratnayakage presented no evidence that his alleged persecutors retained an interest in him ten years after he left Sri Lanka.

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-11-00325-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 0866374

Style: Miner Dederick Construction, LLP

v Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation

Date motion filed*: January 17, 2013

Type of motion: Motion for Leave to Amend Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley 

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of 

Date: January 22, 2013